Recurly vs Stampli: subscription recovery or supplier invoice control?
Recurly runs subscription billing, payment orchestration, dunning, recovery, subscriber lifecycle, analytics, and revenue recognition. Stampli runs invoice capture, coding, matching, collaboration, approvals, vendor management, payments, reconciliation, and ERP-aligned AP.
Start with the job you are actually buying for
These products sit in different categories. Compare the record each one starts from, the team that operates it, the handoffs it creates, and the output finance needs.
- · Subscription businesses that prioritize failed-payment recovery, dunning, churn reduction, and subscriber lifecycle management
- · Digital subscriptions, media, software, and consumer services teams that need gateway flexibility and retention tooling
- · Finance teams that want Recurly billing plus Revenue Recognition Standalone for ASC 606 / IFRS 15 workflows
- · AP teams that want invoice-centered collaboration, approval routing, and audit history without reworking the ERP
- · Finance teams with complex approver chains, POs, vendor records, and multi-entity invoice processing
- · Organizations that want Stampli Direct Pay with ACH, check, virtual card, and international payments tied to ERP validation
The same document name hides two opposing finance processes
A subscription invoice drives collection and recovery; a supplier invoice drives review, approval, payment, and AP close.
Recurly asks what happened to the charge
Subscriber, plan, gateway, invoice, payment attempt, retry, dunning, recovery, renewal, churn, and revenue treatment remain connected.
Stampli asks what happened to the bill
Vendor, invoice capture, coding, matching, purchase order, approver discussion, payment, history, and ERP reconciliation remain connected.
Ownership follows cash direction
Billing and revenue teams operate Recurly’s subscriber lifecycle. AP and accounting teams operate Stampli’s vendor invoice and payment lifecycle.
Before the scoring sheet
How to read this comparison
Why two different products share a page
Two products built for different jobs land on one shortlist because the requirement that started the search was written as an outcome, and both can answer that sentence honestly. Whether they compete for the same budget is a separate question the shortlist is usually too early to settle. The evaluation goes wrong at the scoring sheet. A weighted grid assembled from both product tours becomes the union of two feature lists, and a row one product was never built for scores zero rather than dropping off the sheet, so the wider product finishes with the higher total. If the row list came out of an RFP template supplied by one of the vendors, it is scoring you against their own coverage.
What this comparison rests on
Everything in this comparison is read off public material as of the date shown at the top: each vendor's product and documentation pages, and the pricing page where the vendor publishes one. Several do not, so the sources panel at the foot lists what was read for each side and you can see which case applies here. That is also the limit. A public page describes a catalogue, which is what a vendor can sell; whether a given capability is switched on for your account usually follows an underwriting review, and can turn on your country of incorporation, expected volume, or risk category. Nothing here was checked behind a login, against a signed order form, or against the master services agreement it hangs off. Get country lists, effective rates, and enablement in writing before anything is signed.
The differences that actually show up in evaluation
Short phrases summarize the full cells below. Scroll the full table for detail, source links, and proof-request nuance.
Feature-by-feature comparison
Six practical questions to take into demos and procurement. Use the same workflow and inputs with both vendors, then compare what your team would actually have to operate.
| Capability | | |
|---|---|---|
What it is Primary product category and core job it solves. | Subscription management platform for billing, payment orchestration, revenue recovery, analytics, subscriber lifecycle, and revenue recognition. | AP automation platform for invoice capture, coding, matching, collaboration, approvals, vendor management, payments, reconciliation, and ERP integrations. |
Best for Team size, program type, and workflow shape where each product fits. | Digital subscriptions, consumer services, streaming/media, software, and commerce teams where dunning, payment recovery, and retention are central. | AP teams that need invoice-centered collaboration and approval control while keeping the ERP as system of record. |
Money flow & contracting Who invoices, who collects, and how funds travel from source to recipient. | Subscriber lifecycle → invoice/payment attempt → dunning/retry/recovery → renewal or churn workflow. Subscriber-side only; no MoR invoicing or payee payouts. | Supplier invoice → coding / matching → approval discussion → payment execution → ERP reconciliation. Client collection and external payout release are distinct categories. |
Integrations APIs, webhooks, imports, exports, and the systems each product needs around it. | Payment gateways, tax, CRM, analytics, data, accounting, and e-commerce integrations. Validate how each system participates in billing close and churn operations. | Pre-built ERP and accounting integrations are central to the product. Integration is optimized for AP objects and ERP reconciliation, not client-funded payee-source ingestion. |
Reporting & reconciliation Export packages, ledger records, and audit trails your finance team closes the books with. | Revenue recovery, subscriber analytics, renewal and churn reporting, and RevRec outputs. Reconciliation is subscriber-revenue shaped, not payout-source shaped. | Invoice conversation, approval history, payment evidence, and ERP sync support AP close. Payout-program reconciliation needs different source and recipient artifacts. |
Pricing model Fee structure overview. Vendor terms change often, so confirm pricing during your evaluation. | Public packaging centers on Subscriptions, Commerce, Engage, and RevRec. Validate TPV/GMV, contract length, recovery products, RevRec, gateways, and implementation services. | Confirm packaging against invoice volume, module scope, ERP environment, user count, implementation services, and payment-method fees. |
- Recurly
- Subscription management platform for billing, payment orchestration, revenue recovery, analytics, subscriber lifecycle, and revenue recognition.
- Stampli
- AP automation platform for invoice capture, coding, matching, collaboration, approvals, vendor management, payments, reconciliation, and ERP integrations.
- Recurly
- Digital subscriptions, consumer services, streaming/media, software, and commerce teams where dunning, payment recovery, and retention are central.
- Stampli
- AP teams that need invoice-centered collaboration and approval control while keeping the ERP as system of record.
- Recurly
- Subscriber lifecycle → invoice/payment attempt → dunning/retry/recovery → renewal or churn workflow. Subscriber-side only; no MoR invoicing or payee payouts.
- Stampli
- Supplier invoice → coding / matching → approval discussion → payment execution → ERP reconciliation. Client collection and external payout release are distinct categories.
- Recurly
- Payment gateways, tax, CRM, analytics, data, accounting, and e-commerce integrations. Validate how each system participates in billing close and churn operations.
- Stampli
- Pre-built ERP and accounting integrations are central to the product. Integration is optimized for AP objects and ERP reconciliation, not client-funded payee-source ingestion.
- Recurly
- Revenue recovery, subscriber analytics, renewal and churn reporting, and RevRec outputs. Reconciliation is subscriber-revenue shaped, not payout-source shaped.
- Stampli
- Invoice conversation, approval history, payment evidence, and ERP sync support AP close. Payout-program reconciliation needs different source and recipient artifacts.
- Recurly
- Public packaging centers on Subscriptions, Commerce, Engage, and RevRec. Validate TPV/GMV, contract length, recovery products, RevRec, gateways, and implementation services.
- Stampli
- Confirm packaging against invoice volume, module scope, ERP environment, user count, implementation services, and payment-method fees.
Use this as a structured starting point, then verify current product scope with Recurly and Stampli against your own workflow.
Boundary conditions
The work that falls through the seam
The reversal that lands after close
The boundary shows up when money comes back. A collection reversed, a payout returned, a credit note raised late: the undo is a fresh event in the system that moved the money and an amendment in the system that already closed the record. Reclaim windows are set by the rail and outlive a month end. A direct debit collected under the SEPA core scheme can be refunded on request for 8 weeks with no reason given, and for 13 months where no valid mandate covered the collection. The team watching the money logs a return. The team that owns the ledger sees no state change on an invoice it marked settled. Both read their own tool as complete. The amendment sits in neither.
Sources: Deutsche Bundesbank, SEPA direct debit refund periods
Take this into your procurement call
Five questions that surface the meaningful fit differences between vendors.
- 1Name the business job, starting record, and team that will own the workflow.
- 2Ask Recurly to demonstrate one normal run and one exception using your inputs.
- 3Ask Stampli to run the same scenario so the comparison stays fair.
- 4Compare onboarding, handoffs, exception ownership, support, and the final finance export.
- 5Confirm current pricing, coverage, integrations, and contract scope directly with each vendor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Stampli manage customer subscriptions?+
Can Recurly automate supplier AP?+
Which product owns revenue recognition?+
How should finance connect the two record sets?+
If you are switching over
- 01Map the records, identifiers, balances, statuses, and exports your current process depends on before choosing a migration path.
- 02Give Recurly and Stampli the same representative workflow, including an incomplete record and a failed or changed transaction.
- 03Assign an owner to every handoff and exception so gaps do not disappear between product demos.
- 04Run a parallel close before retiring the existing process, then compare the operational and finance outputs side by side.
Sources and references
8 references: click to expand
Recurly and Stampli are trademarks of their respective owners. This independent comparison is not endorsed by either vendor.
Connect the Recurly vs Stampli decision to the rest of your money flow
If your shortlist also needs client collection, controlled payout release, and finance-ready reconciliation, see where Gruv fits around the vendors you are evaluating.